US diplomat involved in Khobragade conspirancy identified ...action to follow soon !
- Thread starter Indo-guy
- Start date
- Status
ThinkLogically
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2013
- Messages
- 821
- Reaction score
- -16
- Country
- Location
It also means that your comb has no tooth which will everything pass thru for blood money. Sorry, we are not Pakistan. We know what comb to use and when.
Gandhi G in da house
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 9,475
- Reaction score
- -24
- Country
- Location
The case is one of tax evasion . Very serious.
'US may be violating own laws on wages for its Indian staff'
Last Updated: Sunday, December 29, 2013, 16:53
New Delhi: The US embassy and its consulates may be in violation of their own laws concerning the wages paid to the Indian staff employed by these missions as well as by individual diplomats, informed sources said here on Sunday.
Keeping up the pressure on the US, a special group set up in the External Affairs Ministry will meet here tomorrow to scrutinise the available information regarding the wages being paid to their Indian staff amid indications that these may be violation of the laws.
US embassy and its consulates are still dragging their feet in furnishing to the government the details it has sought about the number of Indian staff employed both in the diplomatic mission and also at the residences by their diplomats. The details sought include the wages paid as well as the tax details.
The deadline to provide such information was December 23 but according to the Ministry of External Affairs no information has been provided as yet. It is understood that the US Embassy has cited Christmas and New Year holidays as the reason for the delay.
The government's action is a fallout of the arrest and strip-search of Deputy Consul General Devyani Khobragade, who was arrested in New York on visa fraud charges.
Enforcing strict reciprocity, Indian government has withdrawn extra privilges enjoyed by American Ambassador Nancy Powell and other diplomats such as special access at Indian airports.
While the government is awaiting American response, information available indicates that Indian staff like cooks and drivers were being paid between Rs 12000-15000 which is equivalent to USD 200-250, way below the minimum wage of USD 9.47 per hour applicable in New York or in any other US city.
Thus, American diplomats would be in violation of US law of minimum wages since their residences as well as the embassy and consulates are treated as American territory.
Even if they provide legal justifications and claim exemption from US laws for the salaries being paid to Indian employees, the public disclosure of such payment practices by US Embassy and diplomats in their personal capacities is likely to deeply embarrass the US.
The US insists on high hourly wages for Indian diplomats employing maids but pays much lower salaries to Indians being employed by its own Embassy and diplomats in India for similar work. There was no immediate response from the US Embassy when contacted.
The government's reaction to set up the special group, comprising inter-divisonal experts, including from legal, financial and human resources departments of MEA, to assess and monitor the inputs sought by the governments came after Khobragade, the 39-year-old 1999-batch IFS officer, was arrested in New York on December 12.
Khobragade is accused of making false declarations in a visa application for her maid Sangeeta Richard. The diplomat's arrest and subsequent treatment had sparked an outrage in India which demanded an apology and dropping of all charges against her.
Why diplomatic immunity matters - The Hindu
The Khobragade case is not about hurt national pride. There is a principle at stake here, and that makes New Delhi’s rare display of spine a welcome sight
He left the police station laughing, an hour after he had been detained on 15 counts of assault and rape, one afternoon in 1981. New York resident Carol Holmes had that day spotted the smartly dressed man who had beaten and raped her at her apartment, walking down a Manhattan street. The police first exulted that they had found a man they believed was responsible for multiple crimes. Then they realised they could do nothing about it. Manual Aryee, 19, was the son of a diplomat at Ghana’s Embassy, and therefore protected by diplomatic immunity.
“For all I know,” Ms. Holmes told People magazine, describing Mr. Aryee’s release, “he could have been going to a French restaurant for dinner.”
Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade’s incarceration in New York has divided opinion sharply in India and abroad. To some, she is an emblem of hurt national pride; to others, a callous exploiter. Her former maid, Sangeeta Richard, has been cast as both a Green Card-seeking operator and as a victim of India’s notoriously arrogant élite. As in every similar conflict, the diplomat and the maid have a story to tell — and will do so in a court of law.
These questions, though important, are also irrelevant to the diplomatic issues involved. New Delhi’s retaliatory actions against U.S. diplomats in India — a rare display of spine — are a necessary defence of a critical principle in relations between nation-states.
Fraying Conventions
For years now, the Vienna Conventions on diplomatic immunity have been fraying at the edges — largely driven by public outrage over cases like that of Mr. Aryee. It was not too long ago that the shoe was on India’s foot. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court restrained Italian Ambassador Daniele Mancini from leaving India, saying he had failed to honour commitments that two Italian marines charged with the murder of fishermen off Kerala would stand trial.
India’s actions were a flat-out violation of Article 31 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which says diplomats “shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State. He shall also enjoy immunity from its civil and administrative jurisdiction.” European diplomats protested, rightly, against what they argued was an egregious violation of the Vienna Conventions.
There have been a string of similar cases across the world. In 2011, notably, authorities in Pakistan held Central Intelligence Agency contractor Raymond Davis after he shot dead two armed men in Lahore. The U.S. insisted his rights as a diplomat were violated by his arrest.
Internet searches reveal a long list of abuses of diplomatic immunity: murder, rape, drunk-driving incidents. Each of these, on the face of it, involved unacceptable crimes. In each case, letting the perpetrator remain free was the right thing to do.
These cases had one thing in common: a host country determined that immunity should not give the perpetrator impunity. This is morally true — but it is a price nations have agreed to pay for a larger gain. The alternative is to make envoys vulnerable to wrongful pressure and coercion, which in turn would make diplomacy impossible.
New documents released by India show Dr. Khobragade had complete immunity from prosecution of arrest, the consequence of her accreditation to the United Nations on temporary duty. However, the U.S. State Department could reasonably argue it was unaware of this — even India’s External Affairs Ministry only awoke to this circumstance many days after her arrest.
Even if Dr. Khobragade was only India’s acting consul-general, she would have still have enjoyed substantial protections against arrest under the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Article 41 says “consular officials shall not be liable to arrest or detention pending trial, except in the case of a grave crime ….” It also stipulates that they “shall not be committed to prison or be liable to any other form of restriction on their personal freedom save in execution of a judicial decision of final effect.”
This is not equivocal language.
U.S. law
It has been argued that Dr. Khobragade’s alleged crime was a felony under U.S. law, a category that the country uses to distinguish serious offences from misdemeanours. Thus, the argument goes, her alleged offence met the “grave crimes” stipulation of the Convention.
Felonies, though, encompass a range of crimes. In some U.S. jurisdictions, they even include the theft of over a certain amount of money. It cannot be reasonably argued that such offences meet the Convention-mandated criteria of a “grave crime.” Nor can individual states be allowed to assign arbitrary assignations of gravity, for obvious reasons.
The State Department’s own 2011 guidelines on immunity note that the immunity of consular and diplomatic personnel “generally precludes handcuffing, arrest or detention in any form.” It adds just one caveat: “circumstances where public safety is in imminent danger, or it is apparent that a grave crime may otherwise be committed.”
Dr. Khobragade might indeed have lied on a visa form to bring a domestic help from India on less than the legally-mandated wage. She might have treated her domestic help badly. It is nobody’s case, though, that India’s acting consul-general in New York was about to torture or kill.
The correct procedure was demonstrated a few days ago, after a Mumbai resident brought molestation charges against Mohammed Abdulaziz Al Khaja, Bahrain’s Consul-General. The Mumbai Police initiated proceedings against Mr. Khaja, but his immunity has ensured he is not arrested.
It is probably true, as the New York authorities have claimed, that Dr. Khobragade was treated just as any U.S. citizen accused of a similar crime would have been treated — and that is precisely the problem.
Why immunity is important
There are several theories underpinning the notion of diplomatic immunity — among them, the now-outmoded idea that an ambassador represents the body of a foreign king; the notion that an embassy is in fact foreign territory; the idea that such immunities are necessary for the smooth conduct of foreign relations. Behind these theories lies one simple truth: if one nation punishes diplomats for good reasons or bad, there is nothing to stop the other nation from doing the same. For all practical purposes, diplomats would be at risk of becoming hostages.
Understanding this, nation-states have let diplomats literally get away with murder. In 1984, Libyan embassy staffer Salah Ameri allegedly opened fire at protesters, killing British police officer Yvonne Fletcher. Britain severed diplomatic relations, after which the accused embassy staff member left the country.
In a thoughtful analysis published in 2000, legal scholar Dror Ben-Asher noted that “the occasional abuse of the diplomatic immunity rules is largely offset by the continuing need for them.” He added: “The actual number and percentage of abuses affecting fundamental human rights is relatively small, [and] therefore a complete wholesale rewriting of the rules or even a too-radical reform, is undesirable.”
Put simply, arresting a diplomat in violation of the Convention signals contempt for international norms — and with it, signals that one nation-state believes it can violate the rights it accords another.
Long before modern diplomatic conventions began to evolve in 17th-century Europe, great civilisations understood the importance of ensuring that diplomatic envoys were inviolate. The ill-treatment of Raja Raja Chola’s envoys sparked the Kandalur War in 994 CE. Genghis Khan’s armies insisted on the inviolability of the lives of their ambassadors — and razed entire cities to defend the principle. The Mongolian conquest of the Khwarezmid empire in 1219 began after one of Genghis Khan’s ambassadors was beheaded.
New Delhi’s more civilised expression of wrath, notably by denying U.S. diplomats unilateral courtesies, is legitimate. There is plenty of reason to believe the State Department’s casual consideration of Dr. Khobragade’s privileges was grounded in an institutional unconcern for Indian reactions. Earlier this month, New York authorities were prevented from arresting 49 Russian consular and diplomatic officials and their spouses, charged with embezzling millions. It is probable that the near-certainty of Russian retaliation helped focus the State Department’s mind.
It is also important, though, that New Delhi upholds the Convention — not subvert it. New Delhi’s effort to shield Dr. Khobragade from prosecution by giving her full diplomatic immunity is fundamentally misplaced; the Convention gives Dr. Khobragade no such immunity. It is also important for the government to initiate a credible investigation into claims by Dr. Khobragade’s domestic help that efforts were made to intimidate her family in India.
The larger challenge, though, is before the U.S.: it has the choice to do the right thing and admit wrongdoing. To remain recalcitrant, as it has been, is to contribute to the slow unravelling of an international convention that keeps its own diplomats safe, every single day.
praveen.swami@thehindu.co.in
The Khobragade case is not about hurt national pride. There is a principle at stake here, and that makes New Delhi’s rare display of spine a welcome sight
He left the police station laughing, an hour after he had been detained on 15 counts of assault and rape, one afternoon in 1981. New York resident Carol Holmes had that day spotted the smartly dressed man who had beaten and raped her at her apartment, walking down a Manhattan street. The police first exulted that they had found a man they believed was responsible for multiple crimes. Then they realised they could do nothing about it. Manual Aryee, 19, was the son of a diplomat at Ghana’s Embassy, and therefore protected by diplomatic immunity.
“For all I know,” Ms. Holmes told People magazine, describing Mr. Aryee’s release, “he could have been going to a French restaurant for dinner.”
Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade’s incarceration in New York has divided opinion sharply in India and abroad. To some, she is an emblem of hurt national pride; to others, a callous exploiter. Her former maid, Sangeeta Richard, has been cast as both a Green Card-seeking operator and as a victim of India’s notoriously arrogant élite. As in every similar conflict, the diplomat and the maid have a story to tell — and will do so in a court of law.
These questions, though important, are also irrelevant to the diplomatic issues involved. New Delhi’s retaliatory actions against U.S. diplomats in India — a rare display of spine — are a necessary defence of a critical principle in relations between nation-states.
Fraying Conventions
For years now, the Vienna Conventions on diplomatic immunity have been fraying at the edges — largely driven by public outrage over cases like that of Mr. Aryee. It was not too long ago that the shoe was on India’s foot. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court restrained Italian Ambassador Daniele Mancini from leaving India, saying he had failed to honour commitments that two Italian marines charged with the murder of fishermen off Kerala would stand trial.
India’s actions were a flat-out violation of Article 31 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which says diplomats “shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State. He shall also enjoy immunity from its civil and administrative jurisdiction.” European diplomats protested, rightly, against what they argued was an egregious violation of the Vienna Conventions.
There have been a string of similar cases across the world. In 2011, notably, authorities in Pakistan held Central Intelligence Agency contractor Raymond Davis after he shot dead two armed men in Lahore. The U.S. insisted his rights as a diplomat were violated by his arrest.
Internet searches reveal a long list of abuses of diplomatic immunity: murder, rape, drunk-driving incidents. Each of these, on the face of it, involved unacceptable crimes. In each case, letting the perpetrator remain free was the right thing to do.
These cases had one thing in common: a host country determined that immunity should not give the perpetrator impunity. This is morally true — but it is a price nations have agreed to pay for a larger gain. The alternative is to make envoys vulnerable to wrongful pressure and coercion, which in turn would make diplomacy impossible.
New documents released by India show Dr. Khobragade had complete immunity from prosecution of arrest, the consequence of her accreditation to the United Nations on temporary duty. However, the U.S. State Department could reasonably argue it was unaware of this — even India’s External Affairs Ministry only awoke to this circumstance many days after her arrest.
Even if Dr. Khobragade was only India’s acting consul-general, she would have still have enjoyed substantial protections against arrest under the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Article 41 says “consular officials shall not be liable to arrest or detention pending trial, except in the case of a grave crime ….” It also stipulates that they “shall not be committed to prison or be liable to any other form of restriction on their personal freedom save in execution of a judicial decision of final effect.”
This is not equivocal language.
U.S. law
It has been argued that Dr. Khobragade’s alleged crime was a felony under U.S. law, a category that the country uses to distinguish serious offences from misdemeanours. Thus, the argument goes, her alleged offence met the “grave crimes” stipulation of the Convention.
Felonies, though, encompass a range of crimes. In some U.S. jurisdictions, they even include the theft of over a certain amount of money. It cannot be reasonably argued that such offences meet the Convention-mandated criteria of a “grave crime.” Nor can individual states be allowed to assign arbitrary assignations of gravity, for obvious reasons.
The State Department’s own 2011 guidelines on immunity note that the immunity of consular and diplomatic personnel “generally precludes handcuffing, arrest or detention in any form.” It adds just one caveat: “circumstances where public safety is in imminent danger, or it is apparent that a grave crime may otherwise be committed.”
Dr. Khobragade might indeed have lied on a visa form to bring a domestic help from India on less than the legally-mandated wage. She might have treated her domestic help badly. It is nobody’s case, though, that India’s acting consul-general in New York was about to torture or kill.
The correct procedure was demonstrated a few days ago, after a Mumbai resident brought molestation charges against Mohammed Abdulaziz Al Khaja, Bahrain’s Consul-General. The Mumbai Police initiated proceedings against Mr. Khaja, but his immunity has ensured he is not arrested.
It is probably true, as the New York authorities have claimed, that Dr. Khobragade was treated just as any U.S. citizen accused of a similar crime would have been treated — and that is precisely the problem.
Why immunity is important
There are several theories underpinning the notion of diplomatic immunity — among them, the now-outmoded idea that an ambassador represents the body of a foreign king; the notion that an embassy is in fact foreign territory; the idea that such immunities are necessary for the smooth conduct of foreign relations. Behind these theories lies one simple truth: if one nation punishes diplomats for good reasons or bad, there is nothing to stop the other nation from doing the same. For all practical purposes, diplomats would be at risk of becoming hostages.
Understanding this, nation-states have let diplomats literally get away with murder. In 1984, Libyan embassy staffer Salah Ameri allegedly opened fire at protesters, killing British police officer Yvonne Fletcher. Britain severed diplomatic relations, after which the accused embassy staff member left the country.
In a thoughtful analysis published in 2000, legal scholar Dror Ben-Asher noted that “the occasional abuse of the diplomatic immunity rules is largely offset by the continuing need for them.” He added: “The actual number and percentage of abuses affecting fundamental human rights is relatively small, [and] therefore a complete wholesale rewriting of the rules or even a too-radical reform, is undesirable.”
Put simply, arresting a diplomat in violation of the Convention signals contempt for international norms — and with it, signals that one nation-state believes it can violate the rights it accords another.
Long before modern diplomatic conventions began to evolve in 17th-century Europe, great civilisations understood the importance of ensuring that diplomatic envoys were inviolate. The ill-treatment of Raja Raja Chola’s envoys sparked the Kandalur War in 994 CE. Genghis Khan’s armies insisted on the inviolability of the lives of their ambassadors — and razed entire cities to defend the principle. The Mongolian conquest of the Khwarezmid empire in 1219 began after one of Genghis Khan’s ambassadors was beheaded.
New Delhi’s more civilised expression of wrath, notably by denying U.S. diplomats unilateral courtesies, is legitimate. There is plenty of reason to believe the State Department’s casual consideration of Dr. Khobragade’s privileges was grounded in an institutional unconcern for Indian reactions. Earlier this month, New York authorities were prevented from arresting 49 Russian consular and diplomatic officials and their spouses, charged with embezzling millions. It is probable that the near-certainty of Russian retaliation helped focus the State Department’s mind.
It is also important, though, that New Delhi upholds the Convention — not subvert it. New Delhi’s effort to shield Dr. Khobragade from prosecution by giving her full diplomatic immunity is fundamentally misplaced; the Convention gives Dr. Khobragade no such immunity. It is also important for the government to initiate a credible investigation into claims by Dr. Khobragade’s domestic help that efforts were made to intimidate her family in India.
The larger challenge, though, is before the U.S.: it has the choice to do the right thing and admit wrongdoing. To remain recalcitrant, as it has been, is to contribute to the slow unravelling of an international convention that keeps its own diplomats safe, every single day.
praveen.swami@thehindu.co.in
Guynextdoor2
BANNED
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2013
- Messages
- 12,286
- Reaction score
- -42
- Country
- Location
i'M CURIOUS....are you a housemaid...by profession?
Matching the Bush practice of kidnapping people from anywhere in the world and renditioning them for torture in secret locations, Preet Bharara proclaimed an extra-territorial right to evacuate Indian citizens from Indian territory, bypassing the Indian government.
CIA agents convicted in absentia for kidnapping by Italian courts will not be sent there for imprisonment. Requests are routinely rebuffed for US soldiers accused of rape and other heinous crimes against Japanese citizens to be tried in Japanese courts.Strict adherence to the rule of law for everyone is a bedrock American value - yeah, right.
Some diplomats are less equal: Devyani case shows US hypocrisy - The Economic Times
CIA agents convicted in absentia for kidnapping by Italian courts will not be sent there for imprisonment. Requests are routinely rebuffed for US soldiers accused of rape and other heinous crimes against Japanese citizens to be tried in Japanese courts.Strict adherence to the rule of law for everyone is a bedrock American value - yeah, right.
Some diplomats are less equal: Devyani case shows US hypocrisy - The Economic Times
i am here...
This is our law .You can take it or leave it and get lost.But dont worry ther is no strip searching in India
damn... i miss @sincity...where is he...
Chronos
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2013
- Messages
- 5,920
- Reaction score
- 15
- Country
- Location
This is why I put a self imposed blackout on this news.
Lots and lots of absurdly stupid comments from both sides.
And some of the comments make me embarrassed to be Indian. well.... almost.
@Juice I thought the current white population is an amalgam or Irish, German and British immigrants that came in waves, with the puritans the frst to arrive from Britain as the Pioneers?
Juice
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2010
- Messages
- 4,018
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
I try to ignore it....but like a moth to flame..... sincity hasn't redone his flags...but I remember them being Chinese....
Then sorry @sincity. All these days i am harsh to him thinking that he is from america.
- Status
